Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, juliann said:

You have been given a CFR that you blew off and here you are at it again. You have to comply or leave. Posters can be banned for: 

Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

You asked for a CFR for a recent LDS leader talking about the passages in question the way they did for 150 years.  If by recent you mean the past ten or twenty years?  I doubt I can find one and I did not say I could.  So consider your CFR fulfilled.  I refuse to interact further with you. Your are overbearing and a bully.  You can't make me leave this thread if I want to interact with others so stuff it. You don't like that?  Report me if you wish.

Now a CFR for you.  Find me a direct repudiation specifically of how the LDS leaders taught about the passages under discussion. A specific disavowal of what SWK and JFS said.  If not you leave the thread.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

In a nutshell, now who's to say you are racebaiting?

Iam sure there is someone here who will state that I am still race baiting.  Ranting and raving seems to be par for the course for that poster.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, juliann said:

CFR to establish that "reading the words as they are written" is the only valid and correct way to read scripture.

That is a dumb CFR and I did not say that it was the only way. Are you having fun?  Feeling a bit smug and superior?

 

2 hours ago, juliann said:

CFR establishing that a large part of church membership thinks exactly like you do, a former member.

Are you trying to be funny now?  Or still just smug.  CFR that I ever claimed this. CFR that the sky is blue. CFR that I am a former member (I am still a member but you are helping me remember why I am not participating). CFR for the price of tea in China.  Gee isn't this fun.

2 hours ago, juliann said:

 

CFR that official church statements are not getting the message out.

CFR that official statements are getting the message out.  CFR for an opinion.  CFR that you are a human and bot a bot.

 

2 hours ago, juliann said:

CFR that Mormonism has a responsibility to hold to inerrancy and infallibility despite their insistence on continuing revelation and restoration. 

CFR for where I ever said that.

2 hours ago, juliann said:

 CFR on what a prophet should be.

 

CFR for whether such a thing as a "prophet" even is a real thing. 

 

You are required to respond to requests for documentation. This is a long standing rule for all posters. 

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, pogi said:

It sounds like you believe that things are absolute, but ultimately it is society that decides.  That sounds a whole lot like what I have been saying this whole time.  If there is an absolute, it is only relatively perceivable and will be viewed "different" from different and "specific spheres".  

No, that's not what I believe. I believe that God decides, never society.

But I think we've both said all that needs to be said.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

You are required to respond to requests for documentation. This is a long standing rule for all posters. 

The CFRs were not serious.  They were intended to badger me.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

No, that's not what I believe. I believe that God decides, never society.

But I think we've both said all that needs to be said.

Well, maybe what you have said is sufficient for you, but I am left confused.  If you want to clear things up for me, feel free.  

I just asked “who gets to decide”, and you answered “we do”, but now you are saying society “never decides”.  What am I misunderstanding here?

You then continued to explain how different “spheres” will decide things differently.  That sounds like relativity in practice to me, so again, what am I misunderstanding?

Again, that seems to be exactly what I have been saying - God’s morality is absolute (the elephant), we all interpret it differently (the blind men).  What we live by (relative interpretations of the absolute) is our morality in practice.

I also asked why only some things are absolute and where I can find an indisputable and objectively confirmable list of those absolutes.  If you want to answer those questions, feel free.  If there is no such list, then how do we not live by what is relative?

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Danzo said:

I don't think anyone signed up for the program to change their skin color.   

Exactly!  Yet that was how success was expressed.

6 hours ago, Danzo said:

I do recommend you read the entire paper linked above.  

It is a really great paper.  I HiGHLY suggest you read it too.  Especially the testimonies of the students and their feelings like they didn’t belong anywhere.

6 hours ago, Danzo said:

I also recombed that you talk to actual Native Americans who have decided to become part of the the dominant culture.  These people are often difficult to identify because most people with brown skin are identified as "Hispanic".  We forget that what we call "hispanic" are mostly people with native American ancestry (which is where the brown skin comes from). 

I work with a Native American.  I suggest that you talk to actual Native Americans who are proud of their heritage, culture, and derive great value from the practice of their traditional rituals and ceremonies and have not decided to become more part of the dominant culture.    Perhaps you have.  Now tell me why there is something wrong with that.  Why does one have to be superior.  

6 hours ago, Danzo said:

We should judge the results by objective criteria, not by loss of "Culture" 

Loss of culture doesn't matter?  It is not measurable?  The subjective experience of these students and families don't matter?  I agree that there was some good, but that doesn't justify the means that created so much bad.  The list of bad results seems to be way longer than the list of good results in the paper. 

6 hours ago, Danzo said:

Culture is always being lost and recreated.

Therefore whitewashing doesn't matter? 

Natural evolution of culture is one thing, when a culture with a superiority complex seeks to wipe out and whiten an inferior culture that is another thing.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
6 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think they need to prioritize the significance of a particular claim, beginning with the resurrection of Jesus Christ and branching out from there. For example (for me), His resurrection supports His atonement, which supports the invitations and commandments which support my personal conversion and covenants which support my understanding of what God wants me to do and my eternal progress no matter how ignorant or stubborn I may be in other points of understanding or behavior.

I think I can understand. I find myself frequently in a space where I deconstruct my faith down to a basic, generic Christianity with Christ as a Savior/Redeemer. The challenge comes when trying to reconstruct LDS specific claims. I find these questions around prophetic fallibility and how prophets and apostles make mistakes or even, as I suggested here, the possibility that prophets and apostles might actually be able to prevent God from giving revelation, is a major stumbling block to my attempts to reconstruct faith in specific LDS truth claims.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I think I can understand. I find myself frequently in a space where I deconstruct my faith down to a basic, generic Christianity with Christ as a Savior/Redeemer. The challenge comes when trying to reconstruct LDS specific claims. I find these questions around prophetic fallibility and how prophets and apostles make mistakes or even, as I suggested here, the possibility that prophets and apostles might actually be able to prevent God from giving revelation, is a major stumbling block to my attempts to reconstruct faith in specific LDS truth claims.

This is where I find prioritization helpful. My highest priority, faith in Christ personally, makes everything else I face in life, including in the Church, tolerable and doable. Connecting my own fallibility and limitations to Christ and His redemptive power (through the covenants) helps me navigate the fallibility and wickedness of others even while my own remain far from corrected. This priority does not sever me from all the good things He has revealed through fallible prophets, but helps me "see the light which shineth in darkness."

I believe these good things are the "appendages" Joseph Smith refers to: "The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, “that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;” and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth." Fallibility and error are not good things, but these are not the things Joseph is referring to. They are only the fallen backdrop in which our religion is expressed and lived, through which the light shines (and sometime barely ekes) through, and how truth and God's power will triumph over error and weakness.

When I focus on the Lord, problems with the downsides of others and accepting the upsides of the "appendages" manageable.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Teancum said:

So what?  The whole idea of a restoration is that God was speaking through prophets and apostles. Justifying LDS leaders adopting erroneous racists teachings same as other apostate religions helps with this argument exactly how?

The BoM passages in skin color and the priesthood ban were institutionalized dottrine for 150 years.  If the LDS leaders got this wrong and you want to blame it on the time and culture it does not speak well to the usefulness of prophets and apostles. This was not a small issue.

If I am understanding you correctly your hypothesis/claim/assertion is that "prophets got this wrong therefore they aren't prophets -- at least not ones who commune with God". It's an old argument and one that fundamentally misunderstands God's interactions with his mortal children (as exemplified by juliann's post just above mine). If I accurately expressed your hypothesis/claim/assertion then we can definitively say that you have setup a straw man to beat down and continue in frustrated dialogue this thread because we simply, and correctly, refuse to accept your straw man. It's tedious. I suppose you can pivot the question to "what good is a prophet if a prophet can be (and have been) mistaken on this or that point?" Well, golly, that's an easy question to answer.

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Nofear said:

If I am understanding you correctly your hypothesis/claim/assertion is that "prophets got this wrong therefore they aren't prophets -- at least not ones who commune with God". It's an old argument and one that fundamentally misunderstands God's interactions with his mortal children (as exemplified by juliann's post just above mine). If I accurately expressed your hypothesis/claim/assertion then we can definitively say that you have setup a straw man to beat down and continue in frustrated dialogue this thread because we simply, and correctly, refuse to accept your straw man. It's tedious. I suppose you can pivot the question to "what good is a prophet if a prophet can be (and have been) mistaken on this or that point?" Well, golly, that's an easy question to answer.

I too used to believe that the apostles and prophets had some special relationship between God and man that normal people do not have.  That seems to not be the case.  If I am wrong, could you or anyone else explain the difference between the relationship the apostles and prophets have that ordinary members do not have?

Thanks

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I too used to believe that the apostles and prophets had some special relationship between God and man that normal people do not have.  That seems to not be the case.  If I am wrong, could you or anyone else explain the difference between the relationship the apostles and prophets have that ordinary members do not have?

Thanks

I know what you’re saying, that there really isn’t any difference- 

that said, when I’ve had certain callings, I’ve felt much more connected to spiritual insights on every level (not regarding what other people should do but certainly what they needed from me) . 
I have that same experience at work.  There’s a certain in-tune-ness that happens, it’s hard to describe.  

as far as official doctrine, perhaps the word is Keys but as far as what we are supposed to understand about how that translates practically I can’t say. 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I too used to believe that the apostles and prophets had some special relationship between God and man that normal people do not have.  That seems to not be the case.  If I am wrong, could you or anyone else explain the difference between the relationship the apostles and prophets have that ordinary members do not have?

Thanks

Priesthood authority just like Ancient-day Israel.

If they are in error we have the same dilemma as the ancient Saints- there is no where else to go , they have the keys, they have the Temple.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Nofear said:

If I am understanding you correctly your hypothesis/claim/assertion is that "prophets got this wrong therefore they aren't prophets -- at least not ones who commune with God". It's an old argument and one that fundamentally misunderstands God's interactions with his mortal children (as exemplified by juliann's post just above mine). If I accurately expressed your hypothesis/claim/assertion then we can definitively say that you have setup a straw man to beat down and continue in frustrated dialogue this thread because we simply, and correctly, refuse to accept your straw man. It's tedious. I suppose you can pivot the question to "what good is a prophet if a prophet can be (and have been) mistaken on this or that point?" Well, golly, that's an easy question to answer.

To the last statement, "Well, golly, that's an easy question to answer." Do you mind answering it for dumb people like me? :)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think there is real tension here between what the prophets teach (e.g. Bensons 14 fundamentals), what many members believe (that prophets routinely talk with Christ like we talk to each other) and what is actually the case (prophets can’t be trusted to interpret scripture and get many things wrong because they are products of their time like everyone else). These tensions have real impacts on peoples everyday lives. Race issues and LGBTQ among them. Why should a gay person believe the prophet on what kind of life is acceptable if they don’t actually have a direct pipeline to God and have been very very wrong about issues in the past. 

There is tension indeed. Which is why we actively and urgently teach that every individual is accountable for understanding the Spirit themselves. "In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost." Pres. Nelson didn't say that it would be possible to survive spiritually if we just listen to the prophets. No. We have to listen to the Holy Ghost. That's not to say he was dismissing the importance of the prophets. Not at all. How do we know we are in alignment with the Holy Spirit? We have prophets and scriptures as a second witness. If our own witness and the prophetic messages align that gives us greater confidence that we are on the right track.

Well, what happens when they don't align? Either we are wrong, the prophet is wrong, or both. Epistemological and spiritual humility suggests that we hold such tensions in abeyance until further light and knowledge is received. In the meantime, we hold fast to those points where we do have agreement between our own witness and the prophets. Far too many are willing to toss out everything if they disagree this one or that point. That is most distinctly not what God wants us to do.

Is this to be the paradigm forever? Naw. Eventually the day will come when "they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord" (Jer 31:34). That day is not today unfortunately.

 

PS: This would be my response to you as well, Tacenda.

Edited by Nofear
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Nofear said:

There is tension indeed. Which is why we actively and urgently teach that every individual is accountable for understanding the Spirit themselves. "In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost." Pres. Nelson didn't say that it would be possible to survive spiritually if we just listen to the prophets. No. We have to listen to the Holy Ghost. That's not to say he was dismissing the importance of the prophets. Not at all. How do we know we are in alignment with the Holy Spirit? We have prophets and scriptures as a second witness. If our own witness and the prophetic messages align that gives us greater confidence that we are on the right track.

Well, what happens when they don't align? Either we are wrong, the prophet is wrong, or both. Epistemological and spiritual humility suggests that we hold such tensions in abeyance until further light and knowledge is received. In the meantime, we hold fast to those points where we do have agreement between our own witness and the prophets. Far too many are willing to toss out everything if they disagree this one or that point. That is most distinctly not what God wants us to do.

Is this to be the paradigm forever? Naw. Eventually the day will come when "they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord" (Jer 31:34). That day is not today unfortunately.

 

PS: This would be my response to you as well, Tacenda.

Sounds nice. Here is what Dallin Oaks says on the subject.
 

“Unfortunately, it is common for persons who are violating God’s commandments or disobedient to the counsel of their priesthood leaders to declare that God has revealed to them that they are excused from obeying some commandment or from following some counsel. Such persons may be receiving revelation or inspiration, but it is not from the source they suppose. The devil is the father of lies, and he is ever anxious to frustrate the work of God by his clever imitations.“

So, in his view, it’s apparent if we don’t get the same answer as him, we are being inspired by Satan. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
4 hours ago, CV75 said:

This is where I find prioritization helpful. My highest priority, faith in Christ personally, makes everything else I face in life, including in the Church, tolerable and doable.

I.e., “I tolerate racism because I think Jesus and I are buddies.” What you call prioritization is just the “screw you, I’ve got mine” mentality. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sounds nice. Here is what Dallin Oaks says on the subject.
 

“Unfortunately, it is common for persons who are violating God’s commandments or disobedient to the counsel of their priesthood leaders to declare that God has revealed to them that they are excused from obeying some commandment or from following some counsel. Such persons may be receiving revelation or inspiration, but it is not from the source they suppose. The devil is the father of lies, and he is ever anxious to frustrate the work of God by his clever imitations.“

So, in his view, it’s apparent if we don’t get the same answer as him, we are being inspired by Satan. 

My comment and Elder Oak's comment are not in disagreement, not in how I see it at least. If you are interested in understanding what I intended my words to mean (and which they do), I invite you to reframe your understanding of my comment within the framework that aligns with I am now telling you-- that the two comments are not in disagreement.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...